Evidence Hub

Identifying adolescents at risk for depression: a prediction score performance in cohorts based in three different continents

T. Rocha, H. Fisher, A. Caye, Luciana Anselmi, L. Arseneault, F. Barros, A. Caspi, A. Danese et al.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020

2,192 participants · 67 citations

Abstract

Objective: Prediction models have become frequent in the medical literature, but most published studies are conducted in a single setting. Heterogeneity between development and validation samples has been posited as a major obstacle for the generalization of models. We aimed to develop a multivariable prognostic model using sociodemographic variables easily obtainable from adolescents at age 15 to predict a depressive disorder diagnosis at age 18, and to evaluate its generalizability in two samples from diverse socioeconomic and cultural settings. Methods: Data from the 1993 Pelotas Birth Cohort were used to develop the prediction model, and its generalizability was evaluated in two representative cohort studies: the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study and the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Results: At age 15, 2,192 adolescents with no evidence of current or previous depression were included (44.6% males). The apparent C-statistic of the models derived in Pelotas ranged from 0.76 to 0.79, and the model obtained from a penalized logistic regression was selected for subsequent external evaluation. Major discrepancies between the samples were identified, impacting the external prognostic performance of the model (Dunedin and E-Risk C-statistics of 0.63 and 0.59, respectively). The implementation of recommended strategies to account for this heterogeneity among samples improved the model’s calibration in both samples. Conclusion: An…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,192 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free